I know what lens I want and what I want to take pics of which is why I chose the lens!

I know the 7d mark 2 will cost about $2,000USD I want a strong bodied camera with better AF and other dslr features that will last me some years, I know the 7d mk2 (when released) will be a good option, and yes that price is too steep, i have yet to know yet the full features of the 70d all i know is whats on the www.canonrumors.com websites I posted here.

There may be times too when i want to take pics of fast moving people and objects in sports and other safe environments, fast moving wild life, where I come from there are a lot of bush animals that move fast enough, frogs, birds, wild rodents!!

Depending on how good your tracking and panning skills are, the 650D/700D may be good enough though the 7D will likely offer a better hit rate in terms of AF accuracy on fast moving objects.

However, you may find the articulated screen of the 650D/700D more beneficial than the 7D's superior AF (through the viewfinder) if there's a strong likelihood that you'd be shooting from awkward angles.

You need to weigh up the advantages that each offers or perhaps more sensibly, which camera's drawback you can live with the most e.g. can you live with the 7D's lack of an articulated screen despite its higher price more than you can live with the 650D's generally inferior AF through the viewfinder or vice versa?

I was thinking that screen thing is useful, over all I want a camera with features that make it easy to take pictures, for me it wont make sense looking at cameras now as I cant afford any if them even the Canon T3i.

By the time I save to buy the the camera and lens I want which is no less than the Canon 650D with the Canon efs 15-85mm lens, the Canon 70D and the Canon 7D mk2 will be released and those are cameras I look forward to.

What I want in a cam is not just image quality, and features to make it easy to take pictures, I want "DURABILITY" some thing I wont get in a "budget" DSLR, I dont want to buy a cheap camera then upgrade later, overall that is a waste of money for me.

As someone mentioned on another forum (which I posted a topic of this name at the same time) I should buy a good cam so I dont have to upgrade, which for me is the reason I considered more expensive cameras in the first place!

The most I would spend on a good body and a good lens together may be $1600US

Well, the Rebel line is Canon's budget line, so theoretically the 700D is too a budget camera and thus doesnt suit your needs. But, my Canon 350D/ XT from 2004 (or 2005?) cost some $1200 back then but still lasts. Quite durable, isn't it? And yeah, it's hit Mother Earth several times unfortunately...

Well, the Rebel line is Canon's budget line, so theoretically the 700D is too a budget camera and thus doesnt suit your needs. But, my Canon 350D/ XT from 2004 (or 2005?) cost some $1200 back then but still lasts. Quite durable, isn't it? And yeah, it's hit Mother Earth several times unfortunately...

Exactly the reasons behind my previous questions.

My 550D was at the top tier of Canon's budget range when I bought it and it's had its fair few knocks and bumps but is still perfectly intact despite that.

DoF is DoF... it doesn't matter what the light levels are. 200mm @ f/2.8 will be the same at ISO 6400 and 1/125th or ISO 100 at 1/4000th. The only thing that changes the effective DoF is changing the aperture, but apparent DoF can be increased by decreasing the focal length (zooming from 200 to 70, for example on a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom).